Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Pakistan

[edit]

Choorian (film franchise)

[edit]
Choorian (film franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia does not generally allow articles for series that only have two pieces of media. ★Trekker (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nemrah Ahmed Khan

[edit]
Nemrah Ahmed Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about author. I have searched about  the subject but didn't find significant coverages.. That can pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Although I did come across a few mentions about the person, they were news-related and not about the work for which the person is known as an author. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ariful Qur'an

[edit]
Ma'ariful Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged for original research, unreliable sources, and unverified content since 2018. Although I have attempted to address these concerns, the article remains poorly sourced and lacks sufficient content to stand as a standalone page. I propose a redirect.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad_Hassan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jawad_Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, poor sources. Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israr Khan

[edit]
Israr Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t believe that this page meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia, as the notability is President of the Oxford Union only, and that the majority of such persons do not have an article. This indicates a consensus that being President of the Oxford Union is not itself notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The individual is not relevant for an encyclopedia, as his only achievement so far is the Oxford Union presidency. A soft delete is more than obvious. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a good reading of consensus—topics without coverage on WIkipedia are not presumed non-notable by de facto consensus. He also has more significant achievements than his presidency of the Oxford Union—he was appointed ambassador-at-large for Youth Empowerment by Pakistan's Prime Minister. I think this person meets the notability criteria for the significant positions he's held. Keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so nobody rushes to close this: there is an open sockpuppet investigation into the nominator and other voter. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make it clear that the Sockpuppet investigation has been closed because it was determined by admins that there weren’t grounds to suspect that sock puppetry was occurring. I was refraining from
commenting again in this page until that investigation ended.
If you look at the list of Pakistani ambassadors of any sort, you’ll see the majority do not have Wikipedia pages, and those which do tend to be have either been ambassador to states like the USA or held other major offices like foreign minister. Ambassador at larger is an honorific title; indeed a quick perusal of news sites suggests that the honour can be given for being a compliant taxpayer in Pakistan (https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1205603-48-prominent-business-figures-made-ambassadors-at-large), which clearly wouldn’t be notable enough to merit a page. I therefore don’t think that position, nor the Presidency of the Oxford Union, fall under the “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor” for notability purposes. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to make a point on the sourcing; sources 1,3,5,6 are all primary sources which can’t establish notability, and source 4 is a news article reporting the existence of source 2, which makes it effectively one source. So we have one source which could potentially be used to establish notability, which hardly falls under the in depth coverage from one or multiple secondary sources required to establish notability. At a push if you consider source 4 to be fully separate from source 2, which I don’t think you can, then you have limited coverage from 2 secondary sources, and the Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy clearly states that “trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.” Daniel.villar7 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree with Zanahary, I think that the appointment as Ambassador at large for example clearly meets the notability criteria. Aspirant006 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that this page meets the notability criteria, the person in question is not only notable for the presidency of the Oxford Union, but as also pointed out, for their appointment as ambassador-at-large for Youth Empowerment by Pakistan's Prime Minister. Furthermore, as Oxford Union President, they were the first ever from Balochistan, which I believe adds to the notability. Keep Aspirant006 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no sources that indicate notoriety through WP:SIGCOV. This ambassadorship-at-large from Pakistan is an honorary appointment and fails to meet the criteria for notability in addition to his Oxford Union presidency. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DLOTH, how did you find this deletion discussion within one minute of its posting? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, hello Zanahary. Second, coincidences happen. A late evening reviewing bios on notable people who have presided this student-led institution, and I find out that a very recent president has an article, and I stumble into the discussion having just been created above his bio. Thirdly, responding to the sockpuppet allegations, the investigation has been closed. Instead of speculating, I suggest moving forward with the discussion. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The arguments to keep are untenable "I like it because it's interesting". Bearian (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability doesn't seem to be demonstrated from the sources. Re: his Union Presidency and other activities at Oxford, the sources aren't independent and reliable sources: they're Union and University websites, and may be reliable with respect to biographical information but not with respect to showing notability. Furthermore, they don't represent 'significant coverage', since they only note that he was President, is a DPhil student, has been called to the Bar. Many people have done each of these things - many, indeed, have done all three! - but aren't notable enough to secure articles. The Pakistani government position is referenced by two sources, both news sites, but on closer inspection it's the same article and the same author (so still fails the presumption test in WP:N because there are not multiple reliable sources). On a more substantive point, that's an honorary position, and governments appoint many such persons without any guarantee of a lasting or substantial impact. Symmyst (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nauroz Khan

[edit]
Nauroz Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is barely comprehensible and topic shows little significance/notability, no reliable source coverage GoldRomean (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh–Wahhabi War

[edit]
Sikh–Wahhabi War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pseudo-historical fringe article, there is no conflict such as the Sikh–Wahhabi War. This article is misrepresenting and confusing the Barelvi movement for Wahhabism and is compiling disparate conflicts between ethnic groups as a singular religious conflict. No scholars support this narrative. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Undoubtedly pseudohistorical concept with no significant coverage. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally out of a revenge nomination for filing this SPI, pfft. I'm afraid I can't win against their canvassing but I'd try my best to give a comment which makes good faith editors turn into the side of keep.
    • Oh for God's sake there's a whole chapter which is 9 pages dedicated to this conflict:
      • www.DiscoverSikhism.com. History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore (Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839). pp. 159–167.
    • Not enough? Here's 22 pages of coverage:
    • Darn it, here's a whole book based on it (crux: pp. 58-131):

Please see more sources in Sikh–Wahhabi War#References which have coverage ranging from pp 2-5, I'm sorry if I'm being a bit too informal, but I'm frustrated because I can't bypass the "Delete" votes by the SPI gang and it looks like they will succeed in taking down a massive notable article. Heraklios 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove how these sources are academic? You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources prove how this pseudohistorical concept you came up with is true, including the title itself which is ridiculously incorrect, Wahhabism had no presence in India at the time, Barelvi movement was not Wahhabism. That itself proves that this notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" is something you cooked up.
Instead of mentioning a failed SPI, and playing a victim by making personal attacks, you need to focus only on this AfD. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trivially: Sage Publishing & JSTOR are reliable publishers. We don't need any introduction for Hari Ram Gupta. "You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources": Let me be clear, you're proclaiming that given sources are "non-academic"? at this point please respectfully withdraw your frivolous but more like revenge nomination. We can deal with the article title and content issues on the talk page. Heraklios 16:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR is not a publisher. That Sage publication you are citing is not about this war. You are still yet to explain how any of those sources give significant coverage to the subject in question. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable and not supported by any of the sources mentioned above, regardless of the bad faith assumed by the article creator, and their clubbing of desperate ethnic conflicts under their own neologism. NXcrypto Message 03:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in the sources but I am not satisfied with the title of the page. The title should be either Sikh Barelvi War or Syed Barelvi holy war against Sikhs. Syed was the only one per source who adopted Wahhabi and it was not a whole community of Wahhabi that was part of holy war. Title change and some improvement needs done. RangersRus (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per TNT, I cross checked some of the sentences in the article and it turns out almost all of it is closely paraphrased. These statements follow the same sequence with minor substitution. This is what I found by only checking one source , I wonder how much of it is copyvio if we were to compare all the sources especially given that the author's contribution history is merely closely paraphrasing sources, suffice to say that keeping this article in current form is not a good idea.
Analysis
Source160-63 Article
The Sayyid's forces consisted of Hindustanis, the Kandharis, Yusafzais and Khataks. The Ghazis were led by Allahbakhsh Khan and the assault was delivered in the early hours of the morning of 21 December, 1826, when the Sikhs lay fast asleep in the intense cold Ahmad Barelvi, at the head of an allied army of Hindustanis, Kandharis, Yusafzais, and Khattaks, planned a surprise attack against the Sikh troops. The attack, led by Allahbakhsh Khan, was launched in the early hours of 21 December 1826, catching the Sikhs off guard as they slept in the cold.
The first onslaught many Sikhs were killed. Budh Singh immediately organised his troops in battle array and fell upon the Ghazis, and repulsed them. They left the field and retired into the hills The first attack led to considerable losses among the Sikhs. However, Budh Singh quickly rallied his men and launched a counterattack which forced the enemy to retreat. The Ghazis retreated from the field and the hills.
Budh Singh had won his spurs, but did not follow up his victory. About 500 Sikhs were killed in all, while the Sayyid lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna and their commander Allahbakhsh Khan. While the Sikhs held their ground, they had suffered about 500 casualties. The army of the Syed lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna, and their commander, Allahbakhsh Khan.
The Sayyid shifted his headquarters to Sitana at the foot of Mahaban mountains on the western side of the Indus in the heart of Yusafzais. Syed Ahmad Barelvi shifted his base to Sitana, situated at the foot of the Mahaban mountains on the west bank of the Indus River, in the territory of the Yusafzais
Now the Pathans from all around began to flock under the green flag of the Sayyid. In two months their number grew to 50,000. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar with an army of 20,000 strong and 8 pieces of cannon joined them. Pashtun tribes from various areas began to gather under the command of Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and in two months, their number reached 100,000 men. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar joined the movement, and their army consisted of 20,000 men and 8 guns
a Sikh force under Sardar Budh Singh Sandhanwalia concentrated at the village of Pirpai, 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. The Sikh army, comprising about 10,000 troops and 12 cannon, was reinforced by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchet Singh, and Atariwala Sardars A considerable Sikh force under Budh Singh Sandhanwalia was concentrated at the small village of Pirpai near Saidu situated 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. Budh Singh was joined by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchait Singh and Atariwala sardars. The Sikh army numbered about 10,000 with 12 cannon
The Sikhs lay in their trenches under heavy assaults of the Ghazis for a few days. When their supplies were about to be exhausted, Budh Singh led the attack. The Sikh guns created havoc among the enemy. They took to flight. About 6,000 Mujahidin were killed and wounded. Murray says that the Sikh horsemen gave the fleeing Ghazis a hot pursuit "each Sikh killing fifteen to twenty of the runaways". The Sayyid fled into the Swat hills. Ranjit Singh sent dresses of honour to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and other commanders. The Sikhs held their ground even though the Ghazis pressed them heavily for a long time. When their supplies began to run low, Budh Singh made a sally. The Sikh artillery inflicted heavy losses on the enemy, forcing them to retreat. It is estimated that nearly 6,000 Mujahideen were killed or wounded in the battle. Historian Murray affirms that the Sikh cavalry followed the fleeing Ghazis, and every horseman is said to have slain fifteen to twenty of the retreating warriors. Syed Ahmad Barelvi himself took shelter in the Swat hills the jihad movement suffered a crushing defeat. In recognition of the Sikh triumph, Maharaja Ranjit Singh sent congratulatory presents to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and the other leaders
Sayyid Ahmad began to live with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a fanatic and one of the bitterest enemies of the Sikhs. With his help the Sayyid commenced coercing the neighbouring chiefs to support him fully in the Jihad against the Sikhs. Ahmad Khan of Hoti, for his lukewarm response, was killed in* an action. The Sayyid brought the entire Yusafzai valley under his sway. Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum, a town on the Kalapani river in Peshawar district was subdued. He looked upon Barakzai sardars of Peshawar as his enemies, and incited the Khaibaris to harass them. Syed Ahmad Barelvi took refuge with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a staunch opponent of Sikh rule. With the support of Fatah Khan Syed Ahmad began consolidating his power in the area by forcing the neighboring tribal chiefs to unconditionally support his jihad against the Sikhs. This campaign included the coercion or subjugation of leaders like Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum and Ahmad Khan of Hoti, the latter being killed for his insufficient commitment. Syed Ahmad's influence was extended over the Yusafzai Valley and tribes such as the Afridis, Mohmands, and Khalils were won over to his cause against the Sikhs.

Koshuri (グ) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Close paraphrasing together with the baseless notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" shows that there is no need for this article. It is misleading to have one. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seriously, are we really doing this? It is not productive to bludgeon in an AfD , especially because concerns about close paraphrasing should be raised at WP:CCI, not here.

The article must be Speedy Kept as per the arguments and sources provided above. We should not allow a good amount of notable articles to be removed through the deletion process for these reasons.

If this is being driven by personal conflicts , then I urge you not to turn this encyclopaedia into a battleground or create unnecessary backlogs for the sake of “revenge”. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikhani Group of Companies

[edit]
Sheikhani Group of Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are not reliable and independent. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed content from prior to semi-protection.
Keep This is does not make any sense. There are sources listed above and the page had sources and add on's that it seems others are deleting. does being a buissnessman & constable in the us not make a person notable. wow 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has many reliable sources in it. i have seen wikipedia articles with less than 4 unreliable sources and you guys didnt delete them. this article is about a company owned by a notable person named ali sheikhani. Ahmadalir (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is notable & falls under the criteria of notability WP:N Davidmathew11123 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources look notable to me. sources like news channels are notable like these https://katychristianmagazine.com/2023/12/06/meet-police-officer-and-self-made-businessman-ali-sheikhani-republican-candidate-for-fort-bend-county-constable-pct-3/ https://uspto.report/TM/98158126/FTK20230830173009/ there are a lot more sources that are reliable and notable so this article shouldn't be deleted. Mrbeast221 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable and independent. Janghirbutt (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace: Brother instead can someone it to a draft so i will work on it and then submit it for afc draft. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep this article shouldn’t be deleted as it has some reliable sources instead it should get the tag of more citations needed. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F953:498E:34F9:B100 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has a few Reliable Sources. Article can rely on those sources. shouldn’t get deleted instead get a tag about needing more citations. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:9:9C:6201:76B0 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable citations shouldn’t get deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:441:F5D2:FB86:14FC (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources look independent and reliable. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:856C:CC4D:E3C6:CFB9 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article Falls under notability it shouldn’t be deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F4C7:2A79:AC6D:4C0A (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has independent and reliable sources . Falls under notability WP:NCORP 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying my best to improve it. i dont know what the decision would be but i will try my best thanks, 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although they are "hatted", it seems problematic to discount 13 editors arguing to Keep or Draftify in favor of 2 editors advocating Deletion. Is there any indications all of these IPs are socks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Yes, all of these are sock accounts and have been blocked. See the SPI for details. GrabUp - Talk 06:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Islamic Studies

[edit]
University of Islamic Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#University of Islamic Studies. There was no support for this page as a redirect. An opinion from the RfD was that it is likely there are sources which aren't in English so it needs a full evaluation as an article. Jay 💬 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was soft-deleted through AfD last year, and then restored after the soft delete was contested. No improvements were made to the article, and the original nom's rationale, "Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either." still holds true. Onel5969 TT me 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above Radiotherapy Institute is essentially a 'Cancer Hospital' in Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan. Has at least 3 working newspaper references from major newspapers of Pakistan in addition to what User:Gheus found shown above here....Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I appreciate the input of the above two editors, the coverage in Google Scholar mentioned above, rises to neither the level of WP:GNG or... wait, this isn't a question of WP:NACADEMIC, so the fact that they get mentioned occassionally does not pass GNG. And the second "Keep" !vote above does not list the articles in which it is referenced, so it is impossible to ascertain whether or not they are in-depth coverage.Onel5969 TT me 22:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fully understand the confusion of the nominator about the Pakistani newspaper names. Hope, all of us realize that they are editing and writing for worldwide readers on Wikipedia. I tried to make the Pakistani newspaper names clear for all readers and removed some dead links...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP. So far there has been no evidence present to show the organisation is notable, so it must be a delete as the article refs doesn't support notability. The refs presented above are invalid scope_creepTalk 12:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 ICC Champions Trophy group stage

[edit]
2025 ICC Champions Trophy group stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2025 ICC Champions Trophy knockout stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stage articles for a non-world cup tournament with just 15 matches, no need for separate stage articles as all this could be included within the parent article without being WP:TOOLONG. Vestrian24Bio 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

[edit]
Super 8 Twenty20 Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Super 8 T20 Cup was much more selective than the National T20 Cup, had T20 status, and was the precursor of the Pakistan Super League. Pakistani publications regularly covered it while the event was ongoing ([5], [6], [7], [8]), and I'm sure there must be some offline coverage of it in almanacs. Since Wikipedia also functions as an almanac (WP:5P1), we must cover T20 matches as part of our almanac coverage.
The tournament was definitely notable, but I'm not sure about the individual seasons that were not nominated. In any case, the matches held in those seasons shoulde be part of our almanac coverage. You could request a merge and renaming of those seasons so that they resemble maybe in the form of 2011 season in Pakistani cricket, and so on, and add those matches there, but it is not for WP:AFD to decide. Please initiate a WP:RFC on WP:CRIC, so that all members are on the same page and we do not have selective purges due to the lack of WP:AFD participation. Veldsenk (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches (International cricket in 2010–11) but articles for domestic cricket are still missing. Veldsenk (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the point about the almanac is a good one from Veldsenk. This article also is notable when factoring Pakistani sources in addition. Which is permissible. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Veldsenk and Iljhgtn: see WP:OSE, which is an argument to avoid in afd, but that's what you're doing here. Vestrian24Bio 15:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? You cite WP:OSE, which states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist..." Neither of us were making arguments on the grounds of "...whether other articles do or do not exist...", but were instead arguing in support of a Keep based in part on WP:5P1. @Veldsenk might have more to add? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches" - which is part WP:OSE.
WP:5P1 also includes WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Vestrian24Bio 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Files for deletion

[edit]

Category discussion debates

[edit]

Template discussion debates

[edit]

Redirects for deletion

[edit]

MfD discussion debates

[edit]

Other deletion discussions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan&oldid=1284427499"